Adobe the year 2009's most hacked software

I can't use the GIMP for a few reasons, one of which is my work flow is so hinged on Photoshop's way of doing things that I can't migrate. In terms of usability there are many areas where GIMP just can't compete in. If you're working on your own projects, then fine, but in a professional environment it really does matter.

That said, as far as I can tell aside from a poor but usable implementation of 32bit floating point images the only thing Adobe has added in each successive version since CS is more bloat and harmful UI tweaks. It's a bit like Office, really.

The reason people pay for it is because they know they can turn right around and charge their customers for having it. The people that use it do so because of style over substance. They know that their clients want someone that uses Photoshop not GIMP or some other program they have never heard of.

Click to expand...

This is absolutely not true. Our customers have no idea what software we use to make our products. Why should we tell them? What would they care? We use Photoshop because... and you have no idea how much it pains me to say this... it's the best tool for the job. They simply have no viable competition that can do the things that they do. I can't stand Photoshop (and generally have a great deal of ire for anything Adobe spits out) but it's simply the best that there is. Unfortunately.

So the moral is, once in a great while, phone support actually works and having a legal copy is a good thing.

Click to expand...

Hahahahaha....oh, you were serious.

Click to expand...

Serious as a dog star. Here at work, I usually refer to our tech support as the "help" desk or just plain helpless.

And most online tech support is just as bad going right into the "reinstall" mantra. If they'd make shit that knew how to properly install itself, especially when Windows tends to screw up installs, we'd hardly ever need the support.

This kind of thing is why I had no problem buying 2 copies of the OEM versions of Win7. Half the price of a "full" version, loads and updates the same, but no support.

You know Photoshop is not only used by graphic designers. I am sure the rest of us are not using it to its full awesome potential. And I was asking around here about GIMP not Photoshop. And we are talking about Photoshop not the CS which the average person doesn't even know about or want.

So it may be true that none of your clients ask if you use photoshop, mine do and everyone else I know also. But again I am not a graphic designer.

I am just a little bit more than the average Joe. I am not a computer, graphics, or engineer wiz. I don't have and friends that work at Adobe or that create programs that I use. I will go out on a limb and say the average person doesn't either, not even the professionals that use this stuff. I also don't have the time or patience to learn a bunch of different software packages just for the heck of it, especially when I will never use them. Why would a person do that anyway?

You know Photoshop is not only used by graphic designers. I am sure the rest of us are not using it to its full awesome potential. And I was asking around here about GIMP not Photoshop. And we are talking about Photoshop not the CS which the average person doesn't even know about or want.

So it may be true that none of your clients ask if you use photoshop, mine do and everyone else I know also. But again I am not a graphic designer.

I am just a little bit more than the average Joe. I am not a computer, graphics, or engineer wiz. I don't have and friends that work at Adobe or that create programs that I use. I will go out on a limb and say the average person doesn't either, not even the professionals that use this stuff. I also don't have the time or patience to learn a bunch of different software packages just for the heck of it, especially when I will never use them. Why would a person do that anyway?

Click to expand...

They have no reason to, of course, unless they intend to get into that business.

Well I said it is priced for people that can afford it and are willing to pay for it. I know artist will pay thousands for a single brush.

So software experts tell me, is Photoshop priced correctly based on the amount of work that went into it?

Click to expand...

That's irrelevant.

Since software can be duplicated an infinite number of times at virtually no cost, all that matters is how much you can get away with charging for it in order to maximize the number of paying customers.

Clearly, the high price of Photoshop is not enough of a deterrent to hurt Adobe's finances, so it must be worth the price to those who are paying.

I can't use the GIMP for a few reasons, one of which is my work flow is so hinged on Photoshop's way of doing things that I can't migrate. In terms of usability there are many areas where GIMP just can't compete in.

Click to expand...

And herein lies the problem.

This really just the same old, "Well, I'm not used to using it and don't know how to all of its tools, therefore it's not as usable/efficient and thus not as good." That's nonsense.

Though I don't blame you. Part of the problem is a lack of knowledge. While there's certainly a wealth of information: FAQs, HOW-TOs, etc. on GIMP across the web, it isn't always the most accessible. Nor do they usually (if ever) go into full detail. There's also a severe lack of literature on the subject--go into a bookstore and be lucky to find a single book.

The thing of it is, though, since it's open source, with a little know-how, one can figure it to be as usable and efficient and he needs it to be. There are also several builds out there (like five or six) that have been designed to function more like Photoshop.

There's also the CLI functionality that, once a person learns how to use properly, will wonder how he ever got by without it.

Well I said it is priced for people that can afford it and are willing to pay for it. I know artist will pay thousands for a single brush.

So software experts tell me, is Photoshop priced correctly based on the amount of work that went into it?

Click to expand...

That's irrelevant.

Since software can be duplicated an infinite number of times at virtually no cost, all that matters is how much you can get away with charging for it in order to maximize the number of paying customers.

Clearly, the high price of Photoshop is not enough of a deterrent to hurt Adobe's finances, so it must be worth the price to those who are paying.

Click to expand...

It must have hurt it somewhat or else they would have never came out with Elements. They were trying to do something to seem the tide of pirated software.

Well I said it is priced for people that can afford it and are willing to pay for it. I know artist will pay thousands for a single brush.

So software experts tell me, is Photoshop priced correctly based on the amount of work that went into it?

Click to expand...

That's irrelevant.

Since software can be duplicated an infinite number of times at virtually no cost, all that matters is how much you can get away with charging for it in order to maximize the number of paying customers.

Clearly, the high price of Photoshop is not enough of a deterrent to hurt Adobe's finances, so it must be worth the price to those who are paying.

Click to expand...

It must have hurt it somewhat or else they would have never came out with Elements. They were trying to do something to seem the tide of pirated software.

Click to expand...

They were trying to tap a more budget-conscious, hobbyist demographic. That's a good business strategy. They haven't dropped the price of PS itself, have they?

I am just a little bit more than the average Joe. I am not a computer, graphics, or engineer wiz. I don't have and friends that work at Adobe or that create programs that I use. I will go out on a limb and say the average person doesn't either, not even the professionals that use this stuff. I also don't have the time or patience to learn a bunch of different software packages just for the heck of it, especially when I will never use them. Why would a person do that anyway?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry... are you asking why I learned all the things that I've learned?

Joy To The World said:

It must have hurt it somewhat or else they would have never came out with Elements. They were trying to do something to seem the tide of pirated software.

Click to expand...

Do you know the history of Photoshop Elements? Before it became it's own product in 2001 it started life as Photoshop LE (the first version that I can recall was Photoshop LE 3.0, which was a limited version of Photoshop 3.0, released around 1995). While the LE version was generally priced the same as Elements is today, the goal of the product wasn't to stop piracy, it was to have a version of Photoshop that could be bundled with things like scanners, printers and cameras.

While a lot of these things may seem new to you, most of it has been going on for years. The piracy issue only became significant with the increase in band width of the net for the average user. Prior to that Adobe's biggest problem was design firms buying a single copy and installing it on multiple systems.

There is no need to guess at motives if you know about this... which is why it is helpful to know about this stuff.

So why are you arguing this anyways? Are you trying to prove that what was the best choice for you must be the best solution for all?

You are arguing about things you don't seem to have a good grasp on and are (apparently) arguing for a one size fits all solution (as long as it is the one that worked for you).

I'm glad GIMP works for you. I like GIMP and have been using it for almost 10 years (on my Silicon Graphics systems where the newest version of Photoshop for them is version 3.0.1). It is not (and the makers of GIMP have said as much) a replacement for Photoshop for professional users.

I have another friend who made an application that competed with Photoshop call TIFFany. I've used it on a number of my systems (NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP/Rhapsody systems where there is no version of Photoshop) and used it a little in Mac OS X back before Adobe made a native version. It is very nice and very powerful software... but I'd rather use Photoshop. The same was true for most Mac users, and he ended up selling the software to Apple (who used it in Mac OS X for the Core Image APIs). I use Photoshop because it is the best solution for me.

But even when my friend was still selling his software (though you can still buy it here), you had the choice of two versions... basic and professional. And the two versions had different prices... $222 and $444. Why? Because not everyone needs all the professional tools.

I am familiar with Photoshop LE and I know it has been around for ages. That does not limit the fact that one of the goals of Elements is to offer an inexpensive options for non professionals so they will consider buying it instead of getting a free pirated copy of Photoshop and that makes good business sense. Why would you assume I don't know the history of Photoshop, because I am not a tech head? (at least not by Trek BBS standards which is a big plus for me)

I was offering the point of why Photoshop is pirated and I understand why. For some professionals it may make perfectly good sense to buy it and for the average person apparently it doesn't and I say that is because of cost and a lot of hatred towards Adobe.

And yes I am asking why and how you took the time to learn programs that you do not use?

Why would you assume I don't know the history of Photoshop, because I am not a tech head? (at least not by Trek BBS standards which is a big plus for me)

Click to expand...

It was just the impression I got from the knowledge displayed in your posts... I guess I was wrong in my assumption.

I, of course, know the history because I've been personally using it for years. I'm now confused as to your experiences with it (and hope that knowing the history of Photoshop isn't limited to a Wikipedia entry).

I am familiar with Photoshop LE and I know it has been around for ages. That does not limit the fact that one of the goals of Elements is to offer an inexpensive options for non professionals so they will consider buying it instead of getting a free pirated copy of Photoshop and that makes good business sense.

Click to expand...

Again, piracy wasn't a major issue originally... but I guess you knew that (knowing the history and all).

But I would point out that most people don't pirate software. You talk about it as though that was an option that everyone considers. I can only imagine that this is because it was an option you, personally, considered, but most people wouldn't.

I was offering the point of why Photoshop is pirated and I understand why. For some professionals it may make perfectly good sense to buy it and for the average person apparently it doesn't and I say that is because of cost and a lot of hatred towards Adobe.

Click to expand...

Hatred towards Adobe? No one forces anyone to use Adobe products. Why waste emotional energy like hating when all you have to do is ignore them?

Adobe sells both professional products and entry level products, most of the complaining here is that the professional products cost more than entry level ones. I charged my clients two different rates depending on if they are home users or professional users. Home users make no money from their computers, where as professional users earn a living via their systems. Why would I charge the same rates for both when one group is making money and other is not?

And yes I am asking why and how you took the time to learn programs that you do not use?

Click to expand...

I'm a computer consultant. I need to know what is available, how it works, and what it's strengths and weaknesses are when advising my clients. I can't do that if I don't know anything about the possible solutions available. Plus I do training in many of the applications to help people get up to speed quickly (specially if I recommended the product).

And then there is the trouble shooting aspect of the service side of my work. How can I hope to fix an issue with an application if I'm not even sure how the application itself functions? I've taken the time to gain a minimum amount of experience in most of the applications that might be used by my clients.

Again, I hate the one size fits all mentality displayed too often in discussions like this. I don't make the same recommendations for all my clients because they are all different. How can I tailor a solution to best meat my client's needs if I don't know all the options?

You can never know enough, and I enjoy learning. And once you've learnt something, you always have it. Plus once you've acquired the skills of gathering knowledge quickly and efficiently, it can be applied to just about anything (including Star Trek ).

But lets not assume I'm saying that this is how everyone should approach this type of stuff... I learned a long time ago that I pick up things significantly faster than the average person, and I use that to my advantage. I also have a very broad range of interests, but fortunately being skilled at a lot of different tools (computer and otherwise) means I can play around in them.

This really just the same old, "Well, I'm not used to using it and don't know how to all of its tools, therefore it's not as usable/efficient and thus not as good." That's nonsense.

Click to expand...

No, you are wrong. It isn't nonsense, workflow and usability are extremely important for productivity in a professional environment.

The thing of it is, though, since it's open source, with a little know-how, one can figure it to be as usable and efficient and he needs it to be. There are also several builds out there (like five or six) that have been designed to function more like Photoshop.

Click to expand...

I'm sure our IT department would love being required to support all of them.

This seems to get missed by a lot of people for reasons I've never understood. Not all Photoshop users are freelance graphic designers. Some of us are staff artists working in large corporations who have spent years building skills and workflow using certain tools. Some skills are easily portable across software. Some are not. And especially in these environments, having a support line is a necessity. Further, when you're on a deadline... and this applies to anyone doing paid work, not just people in a corporate environment... you don't have time to toss out your old workflow and build new ones.

OSS is great. In principle I love it and have frequently used many OSS projects on my own time. But at work? Frequently OSS just can't compete with the tools that have large development budgets behind them. And to dismiss it as just "people are lazy" as you seem to be doing is entirely missing the point. Even the GIMP project itself is clear that they do not have the same vision as Photoshop and thus will never do things the same way. And that's fine, more power to them. But that means that for the foreseeable duration, Photoshop is the right tool for a lot of jobs.

Shaw said:

Hatred towards Adobe? No one forces anyone to use Adobe products. Why waste emotional energy like hating when all you have to do is ignore them?

Click to expand...

I will happily go on record to say that, yes, I absolutely can't stand every single project that Adobe pushes out. I hate Adobe. Hate hate hate.

Well that explains it all. I understand completely where you are coming from.

No I have never considered using pirated software, I don't even download music. I either purchase it or use things offered freely. I don't know what the number is of people who do otherwise, I would say it is significant though. It is your field so I will bow to your expertise.

I paid for CS3 Designer Bundle and for the entire CS4 Creative Suite, and no I don't have money to burn. These are the tools of my trade.

If you want to cut somebody's head out of a picture and put it on something funny and type FAIL under it to post on the internet, PS Elements is 99 bucks. Stop complaining, or use something else. You don't need the entire CS Creative Suite for that.

People who can't afford it don't need it. People who need it, it'll pay for itself. People who want it just to have it complain about the price (even though Photoshop Elements is under hundred dollars).

Click to expand...

This. If someone is running a pirated version of Photoshop he uses 99% of the time just to make thread bombs and custom BBS avatars it's no surprise he finds it expensive.

The adobe creative suite is the most invaluable tool I use at work, particularly Illustrator, I produce a huge amount of vector illustrations and spot colour work. For the average home user all that matters is what it looks like on screen, but for the people it is actually designed for it gets much MUCH more technical than that. Even a lot of highly trained designers don't seem to have any idea about how to prepare work like this for the press. I spend an awful lot of time fixing work from people that only know how to make things look pretty so that it can actually physically be printed using the processes they were expecting.

Your average design school graduate doesn't have the first clue how to prepare a piece of 4 col process + 2 spot work, or the various and lengthy technical requirements that go hand in hand with that sort of work.

When it gets to press I have to be absolutely sure that the printed results are exactly what I was expecting, there is no other software I trust in that respect. Illustrator is an incredibly powerful and complex piece of software, I don't consider it overpriced at all.